headers
Danny McPherson | 6 Jan 2009 22:11
Favicon

Fwd: I-D Action:draft-mcpherson-anycast-arch-implications-00.txt


Comments welcome!

-danny

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Internet-Drafts <at> ietf.org
> Date: January 6, 2009 11:00:01 AM MST
> To: i-d-announce <at> ietf.org
> Subject: I-D Action:draft-mcpherson-anycast-arch-implications-00.txt
> Reply-To: internet-drafts <at> ietf.org
>
> A New Internet-Draft is available from the on-line Internet-Drafts  
> directories.
>
> 	Title           : Architectural Considerations of IP Anycast
> 	Author(s)       : D. McPherson, D. Oran
> 	Filename        : draft-mcpherson-anycast-arch-implications-00.txt
> 	Pages           : 15
> 	Date            : 2009-01-06
>
> This memo discusses architectural implications of IP anycast.
>
> A URL for this Internet-Draft is:
> http://www.ietf.org/internet-drafts/draft-mcpherson-anycast-arch-implications-00.txt
>
> Internet-Drafts are also available by anonymous FTP at:
> ftp://ftp.ietf.org/internet-drafts/
>
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 13 Jan 2009 12:13

Re: Last Call: draft-atlas-icmp-unnumbered (Extending ICMP for Interface and Next-hop Identification) to Proposed Standard

An IPR declaration [1] was recently filed for this draft. This happened 
when the INTAREA working group had already passed the draft onwards and 
I had initiated the IETF Last Call; the existence of the IPR was a 
surprise. The IPR is not necessarily a problem, but I think it is fair 
to take the draft back to the WG so that the matter can be considered 
again in the light of all information that we now have.

As a result, I am terminating the Last Call and sending the draft back 
to the INTAREA working group. A separate WG Last Call will be initiated 
later.

Jari

[1] https://datatracker.ietf.org/ipr/1065/
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 13 Jan 2009 16:05

its the BOF proposal time again

Please remember to submit your BOF proposals, if there are any. Relevant 
excerpt from the important meeting dates page:

December 22, 2008 Monday - Working Group and BOF scheduling begins. To 
request a Working Group session, use the IETF Meeting Session Request 
Tool <https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi>.
January 19, 2009 Monday - Cutoff date for requests to schedule Working 
Group meetings and for preliminary BOF proposals to ADs at 17:00 PST 
(01:00 Tuesday, January 20 UTC/GMT). To request a Working Group session, 
use the IETF Meeting Session Request Tool 
<https://datatracker.ietf.org/cgi-bin/wg/wg_session_requester.cgi>.
February 2, 2009 Monday - Cutoff date for requests to Area Directors to 
schedule BOFs at 17:00 PST (01:00 Tuesday, February 3 UTC/GMT). To 
request a BOF, please see instructions on Requesting a BOF 
<http://www.ietf.org/ietf/1bof-procedures.txt>.
February 9, 2009 Monday - Cutoff date for Area Directors to approve BOF 
requests at 17:00 PST (01:00 Tuesday, February 10 UTC/GMT).
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
David Meyer | 20 Jan 2009 20:07

Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP


	Folks,

	The IESG would like to know whether people believe that
	we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the
	next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary.

	Here are the current facts on the ground:

	o We have fairly mature set of core drafts
	o There are a number of other (non-core) LISP drafts
	o Significant global deployment is underway
	o We have 2 (or more) implementations
	o We have been discussing a draft charter (see update below)

	The question is that I would like folks to respond to is
	 "Should a WG be formed based on the draft agenda
	 (see below), or should we have another BOF?"

	Please give your opinion as soon as possible so we can
	close on these administrative issues. 

	Thanks,

	Dave
--

LISP (Locator/ID Separation Protocol)

Last Modified: 2009-01-20
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 188 comments |
headers
Brian E Carpenter | 20 Jan 2009 21:24
Picon

Re: Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

Dave,

Can you give a little more background on these two points,
for those who aren't following things that closely:

> 	o Significant global deployment is underway
> 	o We have 2 (or more) implementations

What's the nature of the deployment, and am I correct
in thinking that only one of the implementations is from
a core router vendor?

Those questions being asked and answered, I don't personally
see that another BOF is called for. The IESG just has to make its
normal assessment of whether the support is broad enough.

Thanks

     Brian
Permalink | Reply | 1 comment |
headers
David Meyer | 20 Jan 2009 23:09

Re: Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

	Brian,

> Can you give a little more background on these two points,
> for those who aren't following things that closely:
> 
> > 	o Significant global deployment is underway

	Check http://www.lisp4.net (IPv4) or http://www.lisp6.net
	(IPv6). There's a schematic of the global network
	there. Basically we're trying to get the RIRs to be at
	the topic level; you'll note that we have RIPE, ARIN, a
	LACNIC "proxy" (UY), and are working with the APNIC
	folks. Below that, we're trying to do a kind of regional
	(contential) aggregation, etc. There are roughly 30
	routers deployed, and 5 or 6 are in the pipeline. 

	In addition, there are a growing number of hosts behind
	the xTRs (i.e., in EID space, either 153.16/16 or
	2610:D0:/32), scattered around the planet. For example,
	the NTT US folks have put up http://lisp4.ameri.ca (v4
	only), http://lisp6.ameri.ca (v6 only) or
	http://lisp.ameri.ca (dual stack). 

	BTW, if you reach www.lisp{4,6}.net (or the mirrors on
	lispX.ameri.ca) from outside the LISP world, then you are
	using the Proxy Tunnel Router (PTR) technology described
	in draft-lewis-lisp-interworking-01.txt (note that the
	draft has timed out; we'll have an update today or
	tomorrow, and let me know if you need a copy of -01.txt).
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Soininen, Jonne (NSN - FI/Espoo | 20 Jan 2009 23:15

Re: Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

Hi,

I am sorry if I'm a bit lost here. Perhaps I just haven't paid enough
attention. Did the RRG conclude and decide to take LISP or is this a
parallel activity? 

If this is a parallel activity what is the intended connection to the RRG
work?

Sorry for the perhaps simple questions and thanks for the answers in
advance!

Cheers,

Jonne.

On 1/20/09 9:07 PM, "ext David Meyer" <dmm <at> 1-4-5.net> wrote:

> 
> Folks,
> 
> The IESG would like to know whether people believe that
> we can go directly to our first LISP WG meeting at the
> next IETF, or if another WG forming BOF is necessary.
> 
> Here are the current facts on the ground:
> 
> o We have fairly mature set of core drafts
> o There are a number of other (non-core) LISP drafts
> o Significant global deployment is underway
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 20 Jan 2009 23:35

IETF-74 BOF requests

BOF requests for the upcoming meeting are listed in 
http://trac.tools.ietf.org/bof/trac/wiki/WikiStart

I would like to ask for a couple of things. First, are we missing 
something? If yes, its about time you send the ADs mail...

Second, take a look at the proposals and provide feedback either to us 
or to the organizers. I'll note that the various efforts are in various 
stages, some in very, very early form. Please do not shoot the ideas 
down just yet; at this point the more useful feedback is suggestions on 
what direction these efforts should be taken to. Or YOUR participation 
in the effort to move it to that right direction or write that missing 
document.

Jari
Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |
headers
Jari Arkko | 21 Jan 2009 00:36

Re: Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP

I wanted to provide some background on this question.

As you recall, a BOF was held on EXPLISP in Dublin. In Minneapolis we 
had a number of WGs and the RRG talk about LISP. Implementation and 
small scale deployment is going on. The RRG is still continuing its 
work, and they are looking at a number of different solutions, including 
map-and-encap, translation, host changes, and combinations thereof. I do 
not want to preempt the RRG's efforts and at this time we are NOT 
considering any IETF standards in this area. We are, however, 
potentially interested in working groups targeting experimental 
specifications so that we can get more experience about the various 
technical solutions, different people can build systems that work 
together, etc. Some of you may be familiar with the HIP effort; they 
also had a working group that produced experimental RFCs to complement 
the more research oriented work in the IRTF HIP group.

My interpretation of the outcome of the first BOF was that the topic was 
very interesting for the people in the room but that at the time they 
felt it was more in research than IETF scope. There were also technical 
debates. That being said, we did not spend enough time on the WG 
formation question. So I did not view the results as final. 
Nevertheless, several attempts were made in the autumn to create some 
form of a subgroup in RRG to do this work. However, the proponents were 
only interested in a working group.

So what is happening now is what we did with many other BOF efforts as 
well. We got feedback in the BOF, there's been further discussion, and 
work on various fronts has progressed. Its time to complete the 
discussion about the fate of this effort. We need to see if additional 
information or further changes can result in a WG proposal that is
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 156 comments |
headers
Marshall Eubanks | 21 Jan 2009 00:40

Re: [lisp] Please respond: Questions from the IESG as to whether a WG forming BOF is necessary for LISP


On Jan 20, 2009, at 6:36 PM, Jari Arkko wrote:

> I wanted to provide some background on this question.
>
> As you recall, a BOF was held on EXPLISP in Dublin. In Minneapolis  
> we had a number of WGs and the RRG talk about LISP. Implementation  
> and small scale deployment is going on. The RRG is still continuing  
> its work, and they are looking at a number of different solutions,  
> including map-and-encap, translation, host changes, and combinations  
> thereof. I do not want to preempt the RRG's efforts and at this time  
> we are NOT considering any IETF standards in this area. We are,  
> however, potentially interested in working groups targeting  
> experimental specifications so that we can get more experience about  
> the various technical solutions, different people can build systems  
> that work together, etc. Some of you may be familiar with the HIP  
> effort; they also had a working group that produced experimental  
> RFCs to complement the more research oriented work in the IRTF HIP  
> group.
>
> My interpretation of the outcome of the first BOF was that the topic  
> was very interesting for the people in the room but that at the time  
> they felt it was more in research than IETF scope. There were also  
> technical debates. That being said, we did not spend enough time on  
> the WG formation question. So I did not view the results as final.  
> Nevertheless, several attempts were made in the autumn to create  
> some form of a subgroup in RRG to do this work. However, the  
> proponents were only interested in a working group.
>
> So what is happening now is what we did with many other BOF efforts
(Continue reading)

Permalink | Reply | 0 comments |

Gmane